Certainly +1 to the first two ammendments from Sanjiva.
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
-----Original Message-----
From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 12:40 PM
To: Martin Gudgin; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Port type extension proposal
This looks quite reasonable. However, there are some major features that
we (IBM) don't like:
- We need to have multiple portTypes per service, not just one. We
believe that different aspects of a service's function are best
modeled by different portTypes and it does not make sense to
force one to combine all of them into one portType.
- The service must indicate its "type": with portType inheritance
in place we (IBM) would prefer to have the service just indicate
the interfaces it supports:
<service implements="pt1 .. ptn"> ... </service>
- The semantics of inheritance needs to be defined more. What are
the rules for two operations of the same (local) name from two
inherited portTypes? I guess the Java (and I assume C# too?) rule
of ignoring the namespace (package for Java) and just merging
the local names will work. If there's a conflict then since we now
don't allow operation overloading, we must require all inherited
operations of the same name to have the same "signature." Similarly
if the new portType defines an operation of a same ncname as one
from an inherited portType, then it must have the same signature
or its illegal.
I'll probably have more comments later .. but nice start!
Sanjiva.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martin Gudgin" <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2002 6:25 AM
Subject: Port type extension proposal
>
> The port type extension proposal is at[1]. I have had some feedback
> from members of the task force ( Steve, Arthur, Joyce, William ) which
> I have yet to incorporate but I thought it better to get the proposal
> on the table for a wider audience. I hope to incorporate the feedback
> received so far later this week. Any further feedback is, of course,
> very welcome.
>
> The draft is marked up with new text shown in green highlight and
> deleted text shown in red strikeout.
>
> Gudge
>
> [1]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.ptext.s
> er
> vice.html